RichardY

@Azrael RandI'm not an American, but English. Ayn Rand is virtually unknown in the UK, the PC game Bioshock game was influenced heavily by Ayn Rand. As well as Star trek. Funny how many game characters often have real life counterparts. I have a bit of sympathy for the English side, as I think a lot of the motivation was more political financial gain, then freedom. 1) No right for continental councils to take land to sell to settlers, as opposed to the settlers occupying it by homesteading with the Native American tribes. 2) Freedom of religion. American Settlers were generally opposed to Catholicism, in Canada freedom of religion was allowed, but excluded non-protestants from state positions. Colonists used religion as one, excuse to pursue the war. 3) Less freedom, and increasingly more so, but still relatively free to the rest of the world. As for Objectivism I think objective reality is more an expression of a persons personality type, Law of Identity A is A. From reading Psychological Types Carl Jung he talks about the Extroverted and Introverted type. The Extroverted type "Est ergo Est" (it is therefore it is) A is A. The introverted type (I think, therefore I think) A > B, thinking obviously not being identical to itself. Yes I think being rational is good. However, sometimes I think the ability to be unreasonable can be more important, than a devotion to reason and evidence. If something is irrational we can say it is wrong in someway, in what way we maybe uncertain or mistaken. In being unreasonable though, if I was offered £5 million for a house estimated at £100,000, would I be irrational to decline based on that offer alone? But given the fact I could then buy another house plus the additional capital, would it be sensible to at least consider the offer, probably a scam or "do you know something I don't?" An unreasonable offer maybe too high or too low, but perhaps maybe accepted in desperation or perhaps due to vice. My point being if you have a degree of autarky, being leveraged is more difficult. The USA for instance has the resources it needs, and can trade with itself if needed, it can afford to be unreasonable in offers or demands. People can't even stick to the NAP on the forum, let alone everyday life. Which is why I think it is total garbage as a principle, but useful as a general rule.

I would say choosing Evil is more out of a state of ignorance, than of ease or pleasure. Someone may choose evil being in a state of dis-ease. For example, I don't like something so I'll try to destroy it, maybe it's easy to do, maybe not. How can it be pleasing or easy to destroy a good person. Hedonism and Nihilism, are both different sides of same the coin. What that coin is I don't know. I mean utilitarianism predominates with the line of thinking that determinism is correct. Nothing about living in a utilitarian culture or not, purely a relative judgement. Determinism, I think is incorrect.

Yes I was thinking crowd psychology or things like fads, which come and go but are never really the same. I would say that good is superior even in the absence of morality(conforming to established social norms), to set a standard. But that it also maybe almost impossible for some people to be good. Basically what Aristotle mentions in Nicomachean Ethics about being in different cities, if things are corrupt, society, the mind, how can one be good? You see I would disagree with victory or defeat being up to freewill. I think collectivists love victory/Nike. Victory at what cost? Can only really speak for myself, virtually no in-group preference, but selfish to the extreme. With no in-group preference, out group doesn't mean much either. Sure I'll give it a look.

Disagree with The Takers & Makers. The Taker part is ok, just the maker part I think is wrong. 1) Philosophical Dualism. 2) In order make you must first take. 3) If you carry on making, resources are finite, so something has to be destroyed. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed." 4) I think it's projection. Neither good nor bad in itself, but sees the world other than it is.

@Meister The Tao Te Ching is better than the "Art of War".

Hypocrisy.

Again passive aggression. Cr*p content

I mean all 9/11 and UFO cr*p. Why not look at something fairly obvious, like the Seth Rich or David Kelly assassination, see who knows them and then work out what might be true. Who the hell is often a Civil Engineer with knowledge of metallurgy and other high tech skills.

I looked at who the report was targeting, when I saw Barn mention it (which I appreciate). There was no one in the "report" who I felt was better than what Stefan is doing, only different, Milo I think is superior in eloquence. James O'Keeffe superior in awareness, Lauren Southern superior in creativity. Sargon of Akhad superior in sentimentality, so I think he's behind the curve. They missed VoxDay out which I thought was interesting, but after the Nationalists in Europe, or at least in the UK have been effectively destroyed. I think because they tend to be highly conscientious to the point of stubbornness and blindsidedness, so they get infiltrated and destroyed from within. Despite sometimes doing a lot of good. Kind of sucks because I was hoping to see someone new and interesting. Really all of these tenured philosophy professors & high school teachers, millions of them and virtually none of them can do a decent show or practice? Did use to watch some of a philosopher called Gregory Sadler, though he was fond of Hegel, and doesn't have the punch or aptitude of Stefan. I mean I think I've asked about three times on the forum if there's anyone better. Jordan Peterson came up, but reading some of the earlier posts some people were talking about him before he became more mainstream. I wouldn't even mind seeing leftists or postmodernists doing a show, the only other thing is the guru thing but after listening to a few hours often have most of what they are saying, without repetition. Prefer more punch. Still pouring on the gasoline or pursing higher things right? The report itself was total cr*p. Formatting looked ok though. Thought putting Joe Rogan in was funny, I'm sure he plays dumb sometimes, so I don't listen to his show. If they were going to do a hit piece, pretty incompetent to not use at least a MSM "journalist" or someone else, as I remember Milo saying "The UK media is way more evil than the US one" Personally I equivocate society with evil.

The guy's original question was about embodiment, and you go off on a tangent talking about Freewill and saying that human's are the only species to exhibit it, and which you define as an emergent property. I'm not the one going off to abstraction land. I referenced the mirror test. I have no idea what empirical experiments have been conducted. I'm not interested in isolated data for the sake of it, but it's implications. Sure I'd look at scientific data, but I have no idea who I could trust with a high degree of certainty, so in the informal setting that is the forum, I am limited to anecdotes and the spirit of the participants.

The collective unconscious is a Jungian theory. The subconscious is dismissed as not a useful distinction, by psychoanalysis. It is more like the collective unconscious is what exists already. So Borg cubes if you will, are Tenement and Tower blocks. It's what the unconscious mind uses in the absence of consciousness. However it is always active, but can be made conscious by consciousness. Things like astrology, days of the week, names of people and places are often noticed by a collective unconscious. The idea being that in larger groups there is more pressure to subordinate individual consciousness to the will of the collective, to acquire resources and perpetuate itself. The unconscious being more capable with brute empiricism. I think the point of an individualistic ethic is to maintain a consciousness that would allow for the interaction between others of an out-group and other individuals. Helping to perpetuate consciousness. If the subconscious theory of the mind is held as true, then consciousness and pre-consciousness still would have to be explained some how, if you hold a subconscious theory of the mind. The best from determinists seem to be it's a fluke, or from Christians that it is part of the will of god, for consciousness. And pre-consciousness that it's either Instinct, which Ayn Rand rejects flatout. Or Tabula Rasa. By definition Good is superior to Evil. However, as Good is superior to Evil, why does Evil appear to pre-dominate, perhaps you disagree? Why would evil even exist in the first place if good is stronger? But as you said settling for the Ethics of the here and now, sounds reasonable to me. Which is why utilitarianism predominates. The distinction of in group utilitarianism means nothing, anything a group can utilise it will.

I think it is important to point out omniscience means all knowing, and not all knowledge. As knowledge presupposes a subject, knowing does not. Because time is relative, the future is a relative notion. As you are saying that all knowledge can not encompass the future, which it can't. The only way to encompass the future would be through subjects. God can not have knowledge of morality, as morality is not knowing. "All" being an indefinite pronoun. All knowledge, is not knowledge at all.

So much BS, how do you even say that in a speech without being phased. Really would like to know, if a subconscious mind is true. Is it possible to commit a love crime? How do you even know someone's feelings and motivations. Hate I think generally relates to the unknown, but contempt takes anger and disgust.

My point is to me, Christ is about compassion, if not compassion then what?

AGAIN!!!!! with the passive aggressiveness.

Well to be honest I'm kind of fed up with your passive aggressiveness, as another forum member has noted. And the fact your posts are highly fragmented and your "absolutely certain" assumptions wrong. Whether posts are abstract or not, I don't see why that matters. You want empiricism go be a scientist and conduct your own experiments, I have google and reason on the forum. If it were up to me I'd add a warning for passive aggressiveness to try and maintain quality, 3 strikes and you're out.

Although I would not make the judgement of the dog being good or evil. I'd probably want it either segregated or put down. I guess the highs and low of a dopamine rush might be helpful. Reward and Punishment. So when you say illusion do you also reject determinism as valid or actual? The alternative to the Freewill & Determinism doctrine. Being a Heraclitean or Nietzchean Flux, the unification of opposites. Might be others; but compatiblism or predetermination, is just determinsim plus. Things like "hate speech", "scientific r*cism" or arguing for a welfare state like Spinoza, but then saying it must be maintained by terror.

Body language as in showing aggression or teeth but more subtle, perhaps the linking of that of various things of value. For instance, if another animal sees another is sick associating that with a negative value. If another has an expression of joy over eating associating that with a value. But as written and spoken language often involves, perhaps a conjugation of opposites, it is by it nature con-fusing. Left contains the notion of right, associations and definitions change, left means nothing without right.

Yes sometimes language can cause confusion, or be confusion itself. When I say "the rest sound plausible" I mean of cause the other animals and not body language attributes of the ants, only really glanced through the article. Reminds me a bit of Bram Stroker's Dracula. There is a section in the book where they are unloading boxes of soil from Dracula's native homeland. However, he has no idea that he actually has the strength of ten men, and can lift the boxes himself without the teamsters/dockhands.

I would highly sceptical of ants being able to recognise themselves in the mirror, might be a reflex action to clean other ants. The rest though sound plausible, communicating through body language.

If god is not all knowing, his domain is not absolute. So can't be omnipotent either. So my question is: what if "all knowledge" cannot encompass the future, as it does not exist?  Well as you have already said, knowledge presupposes a subject. All is not a subject.

Mirror test.

Fair enough. But being a Christian isn't?

Tommy Robinson, literally a hero, guy is willing to die for what he thinks is right, face was caved in, know no other public or private figure that I would call irrevocably good, short of going totally insane. Think those who support the guy tend to be at least neutral. Not one for more clutter if I can avoid it, Russia stealing the election cr*p is bad enough, and wouldn't be surprised if the Novichoke thing was staged, cry wolf far too often.

"Those who understand evil pardon it." - George Bernard Shaw. I'm not sure I really want to pardon evil. Is there anything evil that can not be understood? Brings to mind some pretty dark questions. But if freewill is an illusion, and we are correct in assuming that, how is it useful? Sam Harris calls it an outright delusion, meaning virtually everyone on the forum, (with exceptions to hard determinists with doublethink imo) are definitively insane. I think people who take freewill for granted tend to be more pumped up. I too tend to think in bundles of neurons rather than a brain as such, a good number being located in the gut, heart, feet etc.